I agree that IQ is not everything, (Self-discipline has a higher correlation with success.) but it is a precondition to functioning at a high level intellectually. There is a very strong correlation between IQ and the ability to learn and to reason.
I will eat my words when someone demonstrates that these tests show high consistency with jazz improvisation, or creative writing, or the ability to reduce a complex process to a simple mathematical description.
Madonna's IQ is 140 and Shakira's is 140. Neal Pert's is 150.
Stephen Hawking's is 160. Most top mathematicians are >160.
Moreover, I would argue that one should think carefully about labeling a child "gifted" or "intelligent." On the one hand, it could serve as a form of encouragement and that's not all bad. But the downside is that it is inherently a relative term -- i.e. "you are in the top 97%" and may foster a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy with others.
All of these are assertions with no evidence to back them up.
First, its a fact these kids learn faster and retain greater detail. Second, its a fact that these kids have a higher level of sensitivity to others and to most situations. Third, knowing their high abilities will motivate them and their parents to seek out much more challenging schools and choose more demanding professions. Fourth, the documentation is needed where advocacy is required to ensure these kids get what they deserve.
The entire issue of a "gifted" label also makes no sense to me, as in my estimation the strategy for raising a child should be the same regardless of what you might label them
...
But bear in mind that much of these skills are just that -- skills that children develop by interest and practice, and not necessarily inherent abilities that set them apart from other children.
If kid can do calculus at age 12 and can earn their PHD at 20 years of age, that makes them no different from other kids? These kids are INHERENTLY different because they are very, very capable academically from other kids - both from their level of interest and their level of motivation - not to mention their talents.
However, they cannot make a claim (and there is no evidence for) long-term improvements to reading. Simply because a child is precocious in one aspect of development does not mean that it will persist or transfer to the much wider skillset necessary for future life.
Reading is not a requirement for success in life? Learning via reading is not conducive to success in life? There are many, many studies showing the effect of literacy on success in life. And many many studies showing the effect on learning if literacy is achieved early.
The upshot, in my opinion, is that I wouldn't put too much stock in the scores of these tests. Even less in the subscores. Based on his environment (which probably IS in the top 90% in terms of stability and economics), you should expect to see scores on the "high" range. Your son could easily just be a normal kid who likes reading and math.
LOL.
So, you are a licensed child psychologist? A pediatrician? A published researcher? A teacher? A college professor? Do you even have any kids?
